Confidential to the White House

Comments

1
I know I'm getting tired of defending him.
2
Did I miss it, or did they title their piece "It Gets Better," and say it at the end, but not link to the project anywhere?

Where were all these nice words before the DADT vote?
3
Well, since Obama has started to protect his bullshit brand, I think you should too. Although I'm sure going up against them in court to dispute a trademark is not an option, constantly subverting their lies in the media is most definitely a welcome response.
4
I'd be exactly that pissed off too.
5
I realize I'm picking nits here, but their wording stumps me.. The phrase "In recent months, there have been far too many LGBT youth who have faced bullying and harassment.." brought me to a full stop.

Far too many? Really? Is that what they really meant to say? The implication being, of course, that a few queer kids bullied here and there is acceptable, but that lately there have been 'far too many'??

Again, I realize I'm focusing on semantics, but, uh, .. wow....
6
That is just some unacceptable bullshit any way you look at it. Get the fuck back to work, White House flacks. Jesus H. Christ.
7
Jesus, people - and Dan - get a grip. Having your project mentioned on the friggin' White House web site is a BIG fucking deal. It's a huge compliment, not a rip off.

Leverage this great coup to raise your story to even greater visibility.
8
Just adding my support. They need to stop paying lip service and bloody well DO SOMETHING.
9
#7, it's not a generally positive interaction if I punch you in the face, then give you a stick of gum, right? Same thing here.
10
@7 They didn't mention the project (if you click on the link to the source), they just took the title, and made no mention of the project anywhere. Back in the dark ages when I was in school, we called that plagiarism.
11
@9 - It's more like an abusive relationship where I say I'd really like to stop hitting you--the fact that I'm hitting you really breaks my heart--but to simply stop hitting you doesn't address the systematic problems that lead to me hitting you in the first place, and we're looking for a long-term solution to this problem, not a temporary fix. I'm working on not hitting you, you just have to be patient and hold out hope. In fact, I'm currently conducting a study to see how the neighbors would react if I stopped hitting you. It should be done by the end of this year, probably.
12
#7, they didn't mention the project (at least not in the linked speech). They just appropriated the name.
13
you get a grip... children are killing themselves - and not a peep out of this White House about the hate that is driving it - that is "a BIG fucking deal"

Queer Summits Not Beer Summits !
14
Thank You Dan
15
and Dan Savage,

thank you, thank you for all your work on the Trevor Project and It Gets Better !
16
Brian Bond's been around the block a few dozen times - I wonder if he decided to use that phrase for his blog post title as a deliberate titty-twister.
17
7 - yeah be grateful to the WH again for doing all the spectacular work they've been doing! For dogmatically pursuing mediocre incrementalism while your most loyal constituencies are suffering! Get a grip people, we have to buck up.
18
@ 7 With friends like these...
19
I saw this early today and tweeted it around 12:30. I think the exact wording I used was co-opting. Couldn't agree more with you on this one Dan!
20
@11 - That is probably the saddest and truest analogy I have seen in a long time. I posted it to my Facebook profile. Unlike the White House, however, I cited you.
21
@11 - very good analogy. Unfortunately it applies to several other areas besides LGBT rights: torture, accountability for the financial industry, energy independence, health care reform etc.

Silvio Levy
22
@ 11 - ... while the neighbours have been screaming "stop hitting him" all along.
23
I saw this early today and tweeted it around 12:30. I think the exact wording I used was co-opting. Couldn't agree more with you on this one Dan!
24
Oh come on, it's not like they're going to lose the House this November and you'll be stuck with the current situation for the next 6 years while the Dems run in panic from LGBT DADT stuff, right?

oh. wait.
25
I am more than a little irritated with our president's lack of moral courage; one oligarch or another, I wonder if it truly makes any difference. The reforms made in the New Deal Era have more or less been entirely rolled back, even long before I was of voting age.

Watch are more and more advances in communication, ironically, serve to further centralize power and authority in the hands of a very small few, now having the capacity to mold and moderate ever-larger populations; it seems it is ever harder to dissent. Long-gone, I suppose, is the hope that the personal computer would make the average worker more powerful than a CEO.
26
What a shame! Dan gets a shout-out from the White House - the White House - and instead of accepting the compliment and using it to help get his message out, his response is "fuck you."
Of course the White House doesn't link to the actual project. Half of America thinks gayness is evil, and that all of us are going to hell. The President is not going to link to a site that has 12 year-old kids advocating homosexuality, especially three weeks before an election.
But how awesome that they gave the shout-out, even if they couldn't bring themselves to give a link! It's a shame Dan is choosing to pass up such a golden opportunity.
27
#11 = Brilliant summation.
28
No, Dan Savage, Fuck You. As a volunteer with a Seattle-based gay rights group I am out in the field every weekend canvassing door-to door in places like Bellevue and Federal Way for Democratic candidates who have taken tough votes in support of our issues because it was the right thing to do. Fuck you, because everytime you tear down the president you demoralize the Democratic base and literally drive down the progressive vote and ensure the election of every retrograde, savagely anti-gay, tea-bagging wingnut out there. Fuck you, for having the nerve to think you speak for me. Fuck you for making a difficult job more difficult than it already is. I don't know when you self-appointed yourself the leader of all that is gay in America but until you're ready to stand for election or actively work with somebody who is, you're just another media fame-whore and the only thing that distinguishes you from someone like Ann Coulter is that she throws her hate-bombs from the right and you throw yours from somewhere inside your capacious and worn-out ass. Fuck you.
29
28 - Ah, Dan Savage and the Left is responsible for depressing the base and not Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress? I'd like to see a credible argument for that. Haven't yet.
30
Dear 28: fuck you and your self-righteous babbling. You're part of the problem, not the solution. Canvassing for candidates that aren't going to improve anything. If anything you're making it worse, trying to get people elected who won't hold their promises and who vvote for measures that destroy the United States.
31
Dan "demoralizes the Democratic base?"

99.999999% who haven't heard of him?

Try the White House and Obama administration who demoralize the Democratic base over and over and over and over again, on whatever issue is vitally important to them or their lives.

Name an issue, any issue: and you have Democratic base who care about that issue who are aware they've been fucked over by this administration and the Democrats in Congress.

Either through inaction, or acting precisely opposite to campaign promises, no less what the base wants and needs, often desperately.

I've been voting Democratic for the last 40 years and will do so again this fall, but only because the Republicans are and always have been crazy.

I'm not your problem, the enthusiam gap among Democrats which has been created wholely by the Democrats now in office.

I give you credit for going out and trying to get those people to the voting booth -- but the President hasn't been helping you.

Oh and Fuck You to the White House and the Democrats in office for fucking over the base, whenever they had the chance, and now trying to blame us for our lack of interest in keeping these fuckers in office.

32
@28: Kiss my butt. I voted for the best Republican president we've had since Eisenhower in 2008. Unfortunately, he ran as a Democrat. When the Democrats can actually front candidates that represent my beliefs (and for the record, I'm straight as an arrow but don't give a shit if Johnny marries Jimmy) then I'll be excited. In the mean time, keep pandering to the hate-filled drooling idiots that make up the right - they'll never come back, they're too pissed off that we stopped them from hanging black people.
33
@28 You lost me at demoralizing the Democratic base. Dan is not demoralizing what hasn't already been demoralized by the Democratic party itself. When the Democratic party stops with the whole shtick of "Hey, we love you gays...we really do...but we're not gonna stand up for your civil rights...thanks for the money and votes tho! What's wrong? You mad bro?" and actually DO what they fucking promise to do...then perhaps your job would be easier. Stop blaming the symptoms and go after the fucking cause...the collective ball sack that is the Democratic Party.
34
@ 26 - Well if the White House does not actually give kudos to those who actually do something, then the WH should have the decency not to co-opt a notion that's proven quite popular lately, unlike the government.

It's not a golden opportunty, it's just an instance of shameless opportunistic misrepresentation.

But frankly, why should we care? The IGB project's page is probably going to get more hits today than that pathetic page on the WH site ever will.
35
You know what?

40 percent turnout for the vote for our state is pretty pitiful.

Cause they do twice that in Canada on election day.

Using pencils and paper.

Face it, we suck.
36
#28--It's not Dan Savage's fault that the Democrats haven't done anything. I think you're blaming the wrong person here. Dan is a citizen who was promised something by politicians he elected--and donated to--and he hasn't gotten those promises. He has a responsibility to call them on it, loudly.

Also, BITCHES STOLE DAN'S CATCHPHRASE!! The "It Gets Better" project obviously came straight from Dan's heart, and his message resonated with gay teenagers, and now the party decides to steal his sincere words of sympathy and encouragement to get more votes?

Despicable.
37
@ 28 - I'd say your head is "somewhere inside your capacious and worn-out ass". Please pull it out and have a look a the real world.
38
@26 Actually, at first it just said "fuck you," so I don't think it was in reference to not being credited. I believe it was in reference to the jack-shit effort the Obama administration has put forth regarding LGBT issues, after claiming "fierce advocacy."

@28 I'm a registered democrat, I've already voted by absentee ballot, and I'm completely disappointed by Obama's spinelessness. I'm glad you're out there motivating democrats, and I'm glad Dan's dropping f-bombs on the president. They aren't mutually exclusive endeavors. The president isn't doing the job I elected him to do (not all of it anyway), and call me impatient, call me unrealistic, but I DO want his feet held to the fire. I would hope democrats aren't such spineless creatures themselves that a pissed-off editorial makes them throw up their hands and say, "Oh the hell with it, I just won't vote."
39
Yes, Dan, I'm shocked--SHOCKED--Barack is not the Hawaiian Harvey Milk we all expected. Obamessiah has let you down. Shall we all just pout and see how much we get done after a Republican bloodbath in November? Yeah--because then we can pat ourselves on the back and say "see, tolja so" and see how many people we attract to the movement--or the polls--to get things done. No, we'd rather be Right.

You undercut your own very-admirable (and optimistic) "It Gets Better" campaign by encouraging cynical apathy and issuing complaints without marching orders for the thousands who are listening to you. Want those bills passed? Tell folks how to make that happen instead of undercutting those, imperfect as they are, who are actually sponsoring and trying to pass these bills. Stop aiding and abetting the homophobic GOP. A whole lot of "fuck yous" isn't going to pass bills, Dan. It never has.

And spare me the inevitable "drunk on the Kool-Aid" metaphors when you are cheerleading a political-perfectionist Jonestown. You can borrow my pom-poms--I'm too busy working on motivating voters and passing actual legislation.

Or better yet, Dan. Run for office, get elected, and find out what why they call Politics "The Art of the Possible" not the Fast Track to Gaytopia.
40
@ 28: I've never claimed to speak for tools, fools, or useful idiots.
41
@ 39 - Well a whole lot of Democrats in the House don't seem to be passing those bills either, so we should be grateful that at least someone is calling them on their lies and bullshit.
42
@38 I'm voting tonight by absentee and would no matter what Dan says in an editorial or how tightly the issue makes some clutch their pearls.

But I've told the DCCC and DSCC to stop calling me until DADT repeal passes. (Until them I give directly to campaigns whose messages I can agree with.) I don't think the national orgs deserve my support while they're so clearly unwilling--not unable, unwilling--to Do the Right Thing.

And I'm a hopelessly straight male pissed off at DADT, among thirty-'leven other things.
43
No, Dan, you just simply choose to be one. Why don't you just stick to the felching advise and making up deservedly offensive definitions for the names of people like Rick Santorum. You'll have plenty of targets for the latter enterprise after November, no thanks to you.
44
Obama's Art of the Possible includes lying through his teeth at the electorate and then going after the old and sick by appointing almost exclusively those who want to gut the Social Security safety net to the so-called "Deficit Commission."

Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice.

And let's hear it for the man who kept Gitmo open -- yeah, he made that possible.

Also: everybody on Social Security is aware they've received no cost of living increase for two years.

Senior citizens who vote.

However, it was possible for the Obama administration to make sure the bankers got their bonuses, and to give a speech for more off-shore drilling a month before the Gulf was destroyed.

Here's something else possible, Obama won't do: Obama could stop gays and lesbians being cashiered out of the military with a stroke of the pen.

But he hasn't and he won't.

Obama's Art of the Possible, only goes one way: the possibilty of screwing over the Democratic base.
45
@ 43 - Yeah, the Dems are gonna lose because of Dan. NOT! They're gonna lose because of what Dan and a lot of other people denounce: their hypocrisy (among numerous other things).

You're just too naive for words.
46
@41-- A whole lot of Democrats ARE voting FOR them, Ricardo, and a few Democrats--and ALL the Republicans--are voting NO. So by all means protest the hell out of those who aren't, but don't toss the YES votes into the fire with the BlueDog idiots voting no.
47
Oh and as for Obama's supposed skill with the Art of the Possible deal making, it's another lie:

http://www.americablog.com/2010/10/how-c…
48
@43 I'm disgusted with Obama and the Democrats because of what they've done with their power. Most progressives are smart enough to be pissed whether or not Dan Savage agrees with us.

You're really just coming off like a whiny contrarian.
49
Ugh, this is just tribal. "We need our side to win guys! (Principles and promises be damned.)" Well our side sold us out 43. Time to get past the stage of denial. With supermajorities and a Democratic president, those fierce advocates for change took the mantle of Republicans circa 1970s. Are they going to magically about-face at some point in the next 6 years if we give them a pass?
50
@5 "In recent months, there have been far too many LGBT youth who have faced bullying and harassment.."

Honey, tell me about it. What got me is the 'In recent months' bit. In recent months? Try decades or centuries. Baby Jesus has made it OK to torture and murder gay folks since they translated the Bible to English, and the bitch says: 'In recent months?!' Good fucking fuck.

You've got guys in their sixties on the it get's better project talking about being assaulted in high-school for their perceived sexuality. If their victims weren't gay, these bullies would be in jail for the shit they pull.
51
I understand people who are frustrated by Obama's slow work on gay rights. I still think Dan's view of the politics of this is too simplistic, but generally I understand that there are things that Obama could do without Congress that he hasn't done.

But if you think Obama has been an ineffective President overall, you just have lost all sense of proportion. Health care, stimulus, some degree of financial reform, two very good SCOTUS appointments and those are just the clearly visible achievements. I sometimes wonder what you guys expected? Why do you think people on the right are so up in arms? Because Obama didn't do anything? (and for what it´s worth, I'm likely on the left of most people here - I just also haven't lost my sense of reality).

And the WH blog has a copy of a speech, which has no links at all. It clearly references the campaign, though, in terms understandable to probably anyone in the audience at the HRC event, and even puts the name in quotation marks so no one is stealing anything.
"In short, you are living proof of what has become a powerful message in recent days. Simply put: “It gets better.”"
52
@42 Oh, agree completely. As pissed as I am at the democrats, I'll still always vote for them, but as for donations? Right now GetEqual and FreedomToMarry are at the top of the list. They're actually out there doing things, blitzing with email campaigns, etc. (I'm not gay either, I just think "human rights" should mean everyone.)
53
Why is this shitstorm in my Internets?
54
@53 Bags of dicks are well known harbingers of shitstorms, duh! You should've seen this coming...
55
51- for someone decrying simplistic and naive viewpoints, I have to say this seems to be a case of "pot meet kettle."

"I sometimes wonder what you guys expected? Why do you think people on the right are so up in arms? Because Obama didn't do anything? "

I expected the health insurance and pharmaceutical industry bailouts to be health care reform. I also expected the public to have "a seat at the table" like Candidate Obama promised, not this.

Those on the so-called right were up in arms they are made to be by corporate astroturfing operations. Since working class folks had legitimate grievances with the existing system and the fact that guy in power is black it made their job easier. Also, it didn't help that he let bailed out companies take bonuses and continued Bush's TARP policies. And they were enraged during the campaign in 2008, not because of Obama's moderate conservative policies (they don't tend to know what they are, just that he's either palling around with terrorist, an active socialist, etc).
56
Cause it's National Coming Out Day, and teh gayz just realized they missed the window for DADT and the ending of the two wars of Republican foreign adventure, @53.
57
Dan - Thank you for putting this story out there. I read about if on Friday and it hit me that this bullying thing is bigger than gay. Yes bigger than GAY!!! # 28 - FUCK YOU, if you can not stand the heat then get out of the kitchen. These are hard fights and not new ones. This is a huge problem and if you do not attempt to do something; as Dan and his Partner have, then you are part of the problem and not the solution!!
58
@51 Not so much slow on gay rights as in going the other direction.

And there's only one reality, and I'm frustrated by the following in it.

Stimulus - Watered down with more tax cuts that help no one. Made too small to appease when-a-democrat-is-in-office-only balanced budget hawks. Stipulations forcing companies getting Stimulus dollars 'buy American'. Billions of the American Stimulus went to foreign countries. It was the Republicans that arranged that in exchange for no votes, but the Democrats caved.

Health Reform - We got some OK stuff, but in a lot of ways it became the worst of all worlds. We're forced by the government to support for-profit entities. There is nothing stopping the private insurers to collude to fix prices like they're doing now. A mandate without a public option is a giveaway to white Republican sociopaths.

Financial Reform. Wow. It does nothing to stop what happened from happening again. Nothing. Banks are even more too-big-to-fail now. The tax payers are not protected from the socialization of corporate losses. And very little of the transparency or accountability we need to police Wall Street ended up in the bill. It's an improvement, but such an incremental one, that passing it and thereby curtailing the media focus and debate did more harm than good.

Bush aggressively pursued his corporate libertarian agenda with no mandate. Is it too much to ask that a Democratic president with a clear majority, do the same. Yes he has done a lot, but a lot of what he's done has been half-ass.
59
Right fucking ON, Dan.

I suggest a little mashup, Pop Up Video style, and release your own version of the WH video with excerpts from this post overlying their shallow vid and maybe a nice beat. Put it in the Favorites section of the IGB Project and I bet it will get more views than the WH video itself ever would, and you’ll just teach them a lesson in co-opting. But I know it's not really in the spirit of IGB, but you'd be cool if one of us did it, right?
60
from someone who reads your column in the Portland Mercury, You got my full support in this.
61
Damn, you, my fellow lefties, can be some dumbshits! You act as if Obama is king. What Bush supposedly did--like the tax cuts--he did through the reconciliation process. Remember that from the health care battle?
62
@ 51 - When you say that you're "likely on the left of most people here", you mean that you live in Texas or another red state, right? And that's the "here" you refer to, right?
63
Right on, Dan!
64
61 - Obama isn't king, but he also didn't make use of the strong majorities he had in both houses. He and the other Dems were elected to make changes -- changes they promised -- and they have not delivered. The past 2 years is littered with wasted opportunities, and THAT IS WHY the base is demoralized. Anyone not realizing that is simply a party hack. And the fact is, the President isn't even acknowledging this -- his team is fighting back by calling his own base "whiners" simply because people are calling him out on his inaction. We're getting a kick in the crotch from people who promised us action and then failed to deliver. Sorry, but that's not the way to get my contributions or my vote.
65
Shame on you Dan Savage. Don't you know that the same gene that makes you gay also requires you to nary say a negative word about the (all kneel) Democratic Party. Don't you know that to question "Fierce Advocate" is un-american and downright treasonous? That's the trouble with the dykes and faggots of this country - they want to put nonsensical ideas such as equality before party loyalty. Get with the program, son. My Party Right Or Wrong.

We are at war with Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia.
66
Oh, and you should feel honored and fuzzy in your heart that the White House, which would never allow you to attend any event at which the President is even thinking about appearing, has plagiarized your title. Its the thought that counts, I guess.

Fucking ungrateful faggot. Offer him a crumb and he demands full equality.
67
The elections in 2010 and 2012 are theirs to lose. It isn't enough to campaign on the premise that the opposition is worse and to demonize your supporters who brought you to power in the first place.

Nice try with the WH stance on 'It gets better'. I don't think anyone would mind them co opting the slogan if they were actually making real efforts to make that a reality.

I can hardly wait until tomorrow when they file a brief to yet once again defend DADT at the circuit court level. Wonder if they will compare us to pedophiles like they did before or if they will simply say that they don't want fags in the military.
68
Ricardo (62) - the reason that you think I'm somehow not as "left" as most people here, because I differ on what's strategically feasible is telling.
My ideal world looks a lot like Sweden - twice as high taxes overall, 3 times as much (per GDP) spent on development aid, single payer, tax financed health care, extremely high unemployment benefits plus generous welfare, 80-90% unionization, one of the most humanitarian countries with respect to fugitives etc. Unfortunately, that's never going to happen in the US. (btw. I'd argue that a strong sense of structural constraints is typical of a genuine leftist political view and distinguishes it from wide-eyed, naive progressivism). When I look at a President I'm looking at what he could have achieved and what he has achieved.

So FWA (58) let's look at those:
For Stimulus, FinReg, and Healthcare, Obama had to deal with uber-douchebags like Lieberman, Nelson, Specter, Snow, and Collins. He learned from the Clinton debacle that you can't antagonize all major interest groups and pass health care reform. Yes, public option would have been better and no, I don't believe Obama gave that away to easily. Maybe some people have forgotten that healthcare was very close to being dead after MA and it is to the credit of Obama and Pelosi that it didn't die.

I wish the stimulus had been bigger and included more spending and more transfers to the states - but the pros in the WH didn't believe that was possible. I can't judge that but I think it's pretty clear that they would have preferred a larger stimulus, and one with a different make-up.

About FinReg - whether TBTF was really the crucial question to address is questionable - I generally found Krugman et al. who focused on shadow banking were more convincing than Johnson et al who emphasized TBTF. I think the establishment of the office of consumer protection is pretty awesome, for example and I think some of the regulations of what used to be shadow banking is pretty good, too. Plus I don't think limiting bank size was ever remotely politically possible. That said, stronger reform had probably been possible had they packed it with TARP or at least followed more closely. I wish they did.

So on those questions I really think the Obama administration did as good or better as could have been reasonably expected.

That's not true for foreign policy and gay rights. I don't think Obama every looked terribly strong on that - yes he said "fierce advocacy", but he also opposed gay marriage all along. As for DADT, though, I think he does need to tread _very_ carefully. Obama looks weak on defense. The military in general doesn't love him. So he can't even evoke the slightest impression of forcing the reform on the military unless he wants the issue to explode (which then would take it off the table for another bunch of years). I think it's reasonable to do this thoroughly and slowly, including waiting for the military's final report. If the Dems lose the house, Obama can still stop DODT enforcement by administrative order.
I think it's fair to disagree with that. I also think it's perfectly fair to protest if you disagree. In fact, I think protest from the "left" is, if anything, quite helpful politically. What I find harder to understand is the sense of personal disappointment and betrayal. Unless you really believed Obama would change the way politics is done in DC (which brings us back to naive), I don't think that anger is warranted by any facts.

69
@61 - yes, I remember the reconciliation process. It's the one that the dems didn't use to its full advantage with Health Care Reform. They could have actually gotten the public option with that process. But, as we now know, Obama had bargained that away in early July of 2009 without telling anyone. And, many of the dems who had "voiced" support for the public option would have actually had to show a real vote if reconciliation had been used for the public option. But, they were able to "voice" that support because they knew they would never be required to actually VOTE.
70
I understand that Obama has changed the name of the Presidential Daily Briefing to "Hey, Faggot!"
71
For all you simpletons defending Obama and blaming the Rs or the Blue Dogs, you either forgot or never knew that Obama agreed to dump the public option in July of '09 and then lied about it for the rest of the time until the Bigger Profits for the Medico-Industrial Complex Act passed. You apparently also forgot that he cut a deal with the drug companies so that they didn't have to negotiate on prices.

You and your bullshit "Art of the Possible" (a classic self-fulfilling prophecy) seem unable to look at history and see corporate allies like Lieberman and Obama working you fools. Obama campaigned for Lieberman in the 2006 Dem primary in CT and let him keep his seniority and his chairmanship AFTER Joe campaigned against him.

That great health bill created a situation for women worse than anything since before Roe. If Obama wasn't a corporate running dog he would have threatened a veto. If he wasn't a lying sack of shit he WOULD have filibustered the FISA Reform Act the way he promised to. If he wasn't the second fucking coming of W, he would have been freeing the tortured prisoners in Guantanamo and holding trials for any that might be terrorists in Article III courts.

BUT, you stupid, whiny, ignorant apologists are like abuse victims who defend your abuser.

Oh yeah, the stimulus was less than a third of what was needed. Kagan is a cipher. And the folks on the right are ALWAYS up in arms because that's what works for them. It has certainly worked on all of you.

Those same torch and pitchfork holders spent the eight years of Clinton's regime claiming multiple murders, drug running and affairs that never happened. The only difference between then and now is that Obama being black gives them another thing they can use to hammer him. These are people with even less integrity than Obama. They will do anything to win.

Obama, on the other hand, does nothing to win what he's promised. And I gotta figure that's because he is a lying sack of shit who serves his real masters in the corporations while using the scary Rs to cover for him

Wake up and smell the shit sandwich you folks keep eating.

And I don't mean any of this in a good way.
72
Just saw on twitter what Obama's really about: Pay on Wall St on pace to break record high for 2nd consecutive year, according to Wall St Journal.
73
Just saw on twitter what Obama's really about: Pay on Wall St on pace to break record high for 2nd consecutive year, according to Wall St Journal.
74
Hey #57, I am in the kitchen and I can stand the heat. Where are you? I have been ringing doorbells in support of people at the local level like Randy Gardner and Tracey Eide, two State Senators who support LGBT rights because it is the right thing to do, not because it's easy. And in their district it isn't easy. Eide's district went against Ref. 71 and she is running against Tony Moore, a graduate of Jerry Falwell's Liberty "University". So don't tell me I can't stand the heat when you didn't even read enough of my post to know what I am actually doing. When was the last time you went door to door in places like Federal Way to advance the LGBT agenda? You know nothing about me.

As for Dan's video, it was great. It was a little long, but that I can overlook. It got a great thing going. But it's one thing to promise young people that it's going to get better. It's another thing altogether to be out there working to actually make things better. The task of making it better belongs to everybody, not just Barack Obama or Harry Reid or Valerie Jarrett or even Dan Savage. What have YOU done to make it better?

I am working to make it better by doing everything I can to prevent the election of those who live to make it worse and by supporting candidates who have stood by us with their votes. And that is just one of the things that I do.

Since you obviously know nothing about me, you're just pissed off because I dared to dish a little of Dan's crap back at him. But as you can see, he's a big boy and he can take it.
75
I overheard @28 running his mouth on the bus tonight. (ironically on the 28) He's an idiot.

And, 28, just because you're part of a minority does NOT give you the right to use derogatory terms like "Nancy" when referring to another gay male. Talk about setting movements back.

Fuck YOU. You certainly don't speak for ME (an avid Democrat) if you speak the way I heard tonight.
76
I overheard @28 running his mouth on the bus tonight. (ironically on the 28) He's an idiot.

And, 28, just because you're part of a minority does NOT give you the right to use derogatory terms like "Nancy" when referring to another gay male. Talk about setting movements back.

Fuck YOU. You certainly don't speak for ME (an avid Democrat) if you speak the way I heard tonight.
77
That's it American LBGT -GET THE FUCK ANGRY. March, protest, show your anger in the streets Make decent folk squirm about injustice. Protest, embarrass, harass. Withhold taxes. Disobey. Get organized, get unified and Get=qual.
78
Dan:

The White House is bad on queer rights and education as well. Please see: http://cath47.wordpress.com/2010/09/26/n…
http://cath47.wordpress.com/2010/09/28/n…

I've not been slapped down like that by "officialdom" in almost 20 years. Obama is not going to do anything meaningful for LGBT people. To be blunt, with this White House, it's better to be a dead queer kid, than a queer kid who is actually counted in a federal educational data base. (see post for explanation).
79
Can anyone think of a case where the White House just refused to defend a law? They're constitutionally obligated to do so.

Stop obsessing over the president, and start focusing on winning Congress. That's where the laws are made, and that's where the liberal agenda hits the rocks. Blaming/Crediting the President with all of it is a sign of ignorance.
80
Meanwhile, anyone interested in understand why the religious right is so much more effective than the gay left (besides numbers) can take a perfect example from Savage.

Here's how the fundies do it: In the run-up to an election, they pick the candidate who's made the best mouth-noises and back him/her to the hilt. They knock doors, they charter buses, and they make very sure the politician in question knows it. So the day they take office, they approach them, quietly, via a lobbyist, and let them know how much they owe 'em. They continue exerting quiet pressure through their term, but when it's election time, they turn out the numbers. The result is a lot of politicians who may not like the fundies (a lot of them really don't), but are well aware that they owe them some big favors.

Lefties like Dan, though, get angriest around election time, and do the most to discourage voting when the politician's job is on the line. Dan thinks this exerts pressure. But it doesn't. Election season is no time to be pleasing constituencies, especially small ones like gay rights activists. The result is that politicians think of the gay rights lobby as the lobby that can't be counted on, the lobby that isn't there for you when you need them, the lobby that didn't help you out during the election. So fuck 'em---at least the labor lobbies can turn out numbers.

Mind you, the fundies' strategy hasn't gotten them everything they want---they had Congress and the White House and abortion's still legal. But they made lots of chip-chip-chip progress with their strategy. Dan's strategy---can it be called that?---is a perfectly calculated way to lose influence and fail to achieve goals.
81
@11 You get 1 million... no... a billion... karma for that. I needed a laugh this morning.
82
@11 You get 1 million... no... a billion... karma for that. I needed a laugh this morning.
83
@ 68 - "If the Dems lose the house, Obama can still stop DODT enforcement by administrative order"

The whole problem is that everyone already knows that he WON'T. Wake up, please.
84
@79 That is misinformation you have, i.e., your statement that the Constitution requires Obama to defend unconstitutional laws. Obama DOES NOT, IS NOT required to defend unconstitutional laws. The opposite is true. The Department of Justice defends laws by tradition but has refused in the past to defend laws that are believed to violate the higher law- the Constitution. Obama is also required by his Oath of Office to obey the Constitution

But even if they felt that they had to defend DADT and DOMA in the first instance, which they didn't, it is certainly clear that they DO NOT HAVE TO APPEAL. Appeals ARE NOT routine defenses. An appeal is filed if the government thinks the lower court made a mistake and should be reversed.

So no, appeals are just one more lazy kick in the face by the Administration, and would be an OUTRAGE IF FILED.
85
Dan,

I think you're It Gets Better Project is a useful tool for speaking to young gay people. Unfortunately, that's not the message they're getting from the rest of the world.

State-sanctioned discrimination against the LGBT community is not the cause of anti-gay bullying. It is a reflection of the attitudes of a straight community which is -- at best -- indifferent to gay people and their equal treatment under the law.

We can have all the laws we want, but they will always be subject to the whims of a changing electorate. While that electorate may be Republican or Democratic it will always be overwhelmingly straight. And straight people are fair-weather allies. When they are worried about their home being foreclosed, they really don't much care whether or not two men or two women can set up house together.

If you want to make positive change encourage the community to do something to help out. Cutting a check to a gay charity is not enough. Commiserating over cosmos is not enough. Starting a web-based oral history project is not enough. Encourage members of the community, even the rich ones, to give 10 hours a month to a gay political group making phone calls or knocking on doors. Encourage them to meet with their local representatives -- of whatever party -- and explain how bigotry affects them. Encourage them to hand out leaflets on Capitol Hill, in the Castro, and in Hell's Kitchen that let people know what gay service organizations are in their communities. Encourage them to attend a rally. Encourage them to do the things outside their comfort zone.

You have the bullhorn, so use it to keep people moving forward. Complaining about the vagaries of elected officials whose priority will always be the straight majority is not a constructive use of your time or notoriety.
86
So spot on Dan!
87
@ 84: Got any examples of "unconstitutional laws" not defended/appealed by the WH? By asserting that DADT is unconstitutional, you're seizing a lot of ground that the court, unfortunately, hasn't conceded. It's explicitly not the Executive's job to determine if a law in unconstitutional, so we're right back to you not understanding how the legal and legislative process works.
88
@28: WHO is responsible for demoralizing the base and driving down the progressive vote?!?!?

Dan Savage? Are you mad???

I am a progressive Democrat who is demoralized and weary of voting. Why? Because Obama and the Democrats have been nothing but weak, lying, two-faced, weaselly, pandering idiots.
89
Dan I love you. Thank you for all you do.
90
"Keep your promises"

At least have the decency to not lie about YOUR expectations. Obama never promised to unilaterally suspend DADT.

He ABSOLUTELY never said he would ignore the law and the constitutional DUTY of the Executive to carry out the laws of Congress. In fact, he specifically ran AGAINST the Bush practice of ignoring laws he didn't like. DADT and DOMA are the law.

You're yelling at a man for doing exactly what he said he would do. And all this yelling at him, instead of yelling at that other political party that hates you, is doing nothing but pushing our fight further and further down the road.
91
"Dan's strategy---can it be called that?---is a perfectly calculated way to lose influence and fail to achieve goals. "

EXACTLY.
92
I understand the frustration of the pace of reform with respect to gay rights, but I am not going to go against deep held beliefs on the rule of law and how our Constitution works just because it suits me. People do not understand the ramifications of making such sophmoric complaints that the President should not enforce DADT or not appeal decisions regarding DOMA and DADT.

I don't care how horrible the law, once we say it is okay for a President not to enforce a law (or to encourage it), you are basically advocating circumventing the Constitution for your own selfish goals. Imagine if those on the other side did the same thing. DADT is the law, passed by Congress. It can only be repealed by Congress.

As for not appealing federal district court decisions with respect to DADT and DOMA, that is moronic. If one federal judge declares a law unconstitutional and nothing is done guess what - it does not make the law unconstitutional nationally. In another part of the country, another person can enforce the law and another judge can rule differently. One district court judge is not bound by another. It is better to hash out these legal arguments right now.

I am so sick of these pathetic complaints about the Obama Adminstration. If you don't want to respect the Rule of Law and how things are done that is fine. When it is used against you then keep your mouth shut because you are the one responsible for it.
93
@79 John Aravosis over at AmericaBlog has done a tremendous job of documenting cases where presidents have refused to defend laws they find unconstitutional. Here's one of his better posts:

http://gay.americablog.com/2010/07/ap-le…
94
Nicely said Mr.Savage.
95
I've wanted to say this to you for a while Dan, but this seems like an appropriate time. I think it's time to start looking elsewhere for politicians that will do more than pay lip service and cash your checks. The Libertarian Party actually believes that LBGT people deserve equal protection under the law. It's not just rhetoric. They may not be easily electable, but at least you know that you're getting someone that actually cares and doesn't abandon you whenever it's politically expedient to do so.
96
@87 Here are your examples of when the DOJ refused to defend laws they thought were not constitutional:

"George W. Bush (ACLU et al., v. Norman Y. Mineta - "The U.S. Department of Justice has notified Congress that it will not defend a law prohibiting the display of marijuana policy reform ads in public transit systems."), Bill Clinton (Dickerson v. United States - "Because the Miranda decision is of constitutional dimension, Congress may not legislate a contrary rule unless this Court were to overrule Miranda.... Section 3501 cannot constitutionally authorize the admission of a statement that would be excluded under this Court's Miranda cases."), George HW Bush (Metro Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission), and Ronald Reagan (INS v./ Chadha - "Chadha then filed a petition for review of the deportation order in the Court of Appeals, and the INS joined him in arguing that § 244(c)(2) is unconstitutional.") all joined in lawsuits opposing federal laws that they didn't like, laws that they felt were unconstitutional. It is an outright lie to suggest that the DOJ had no choice."

- Gay Americablog http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama…

Gay Americablog has covered the issue extensively.
97
@92 - Usually when I use the term, "I'm so sick of..." it is done, on an unconscious level, in order to alert the reader that my frustration has sent me past reasonable discourse and into the realm of being a tool.

I don't think I would have figured that out unless I read your comment only days after using that expression myself. Thanks! I'll try to watch myself in the future. Hope you do same, because you seem otherwise non-toolish.
98
Does Dan Savage Get Off On Demonizing President Obama? Why Is Mr "Anti-Bully" A Big Bully Himself? I think Dan has an influential voice, it’s just unfortunate that he behaves like a dodgy Tea Bagger one day, and a savior of teens the next. Savage should do all the teens he is reaching out to a favor and not taint all his good work he is doing with the “It Gets Better Campaign” by turning around and slandering the president WHO HAS DONE MORE FOR THE LGBT COMMUNITY THAN ANY OTHER PRESIDENT IN HISTORY. I respect that we need to keep up the pressure on the government and Congress, but can we please reconsider the method of “over the top bullying?”
Here's my rebuttal to Savage's savage behavior

http://transformingmedia.blogspot.com/20…
99
This JUST NOW hit my email (1:16pm westcoast) from Washington Post:
RIVERSIDE, Calif. -- A federal judge has issued a nationwide injunction stopping enforcement of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, ending the military's 17-year-old ban on openly gay troops.

U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips' landmark ruling Tuesday was widely cheered by gay rights organizations that credited her with getting accomplished what President Obama and Washington politics could not.

U.S. Department of Justice attorneys have 60 days to appeal. Legal experts say they are under no legal obligation to do so and they could let Phillips' ruling stand.
100
Way to go Dan!

It's refreshing to finally hear (or in this instance, read) that someone is willing to call the Obama Presidency out, and demand that they keep their campaign promises.

Yes your words were, and are, harsh; but, it's high time journalists everywhere, and in particular within the BlogSphere, speak out and they, themselves, be heard in words equally as harsh, if not harsher, until the administration get's off it's collective ass and moves on those promises. I did a week ago, with a copy of my comments sent directly to the White House; and you just know I didn't even receive an acknowledgment; but, then again, "I reside in Canada, so why would they?"; excepting, what happens in Washington, and hell anywhere in the U.S. for that matter, will, and does, affect Canadians, and all others too, regardless of where they are domiciled.

The time to have have stood up and be counted passed the minute President Obama failed to sign that Executive Order when the Senate failed to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Had he done so, it would have signaled to all Americans, in reality to the entire World, that The United States of America had finally become "One nation, indivisible, with equal justice for all", and in turn, would have delivered the momentum necessary to stem the tide of Religious Fundamentalism in the forthcoming mid-terms Congressional Elections.

The opportunities to shape World History are few and far in between, and America certainly missed the boat this time around when it could very well likely have created just such a defining moment.

Warren C. E. Austin
The Gay Deceiver
Toronto, Canada